The leader-member relations at Northwest University is depicted as a loose relation(da Cruz, Nunes, & Pinheiro, 2011). The relationship between the college president and the and the staff is not tight. It is evident that the team did not have confidence in the president, Dr. Kramer. The president lacked influence over the university leadership because the member did not trust him. For instance, Dr. Kramer is unaware of the scandal that is taking place in Dr. Oliver’s department. The state fund paid dr. Oliver who was in charge of non-academic employees budgeted for salaries of employees in her department yet the same employees. The scandal had taken place for many years, but the president failed to realize it. Thus, the president, Dr. Kramer is said to have been a leader who never followed the leader-member exchange theory in his leadership. He was completely unaware of what was going on in different departments within his jurisdiction.
Leaders position power refers to the powers that the leader enjoys in terms of directing the group and the ability of the leader to punish the members who follow the rules and regulations(da Cruz et al., 2011).Leaders with more power over the group enjoy a more favorable leadership situation. According to Fiedler, a leader can have either a strong or weak power. In the context of Northwest Community College, Dr. Kramer, the Northwest Community College president displayed a very weak position power in his leadership. This circumstance is evidenced by the situation that Kramer finds himself in, being unable to punish Dr. Oliver who had misappropriated the college funds. Despite Dr. Oliver having been implicated in scrupulous deals, Dr. Kramer did not have the power to terminate her. The case of Northwest Community college requires a leader with strong position power to be able to deal with the current situation at the college.
The category of leader who will be the best fit for Northwest community college is the kind of a leader who establishes excellent leader-member relations while maintaining a strong leader position power. Since Northwest community, college is a structures system, the best leaders for the college with the qualities mentioned above and works in a structured system would be one with Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) (da Cruz et al., 2011)s.
The first candidate believes in shared governance, transparency in budgeting and he is jovial. The leaders insist on developing a friendly relation with the college staff, students and community members. The candidate mentioned that he would introduce regular parties at the president’s residence to build a strong and friendly relationship with the members. Therefore, he is a benevolent leader scoring a high LPC of 8 points.
The second candidate is Dr. Lewis who is more or less the same in leadership style as the first candidate. However, the main difference in their leadership approach is that Dr. Lewis emphasizes on rebuilding the overall trust in the college. An essential attribute of Dr. Lewis is that he declares during his presentation that he will have no friend in the college. In other words, he will not develop any ties in the college that he thinks can impede his delivery of service in the college. Therefore, it can be concluded that Dr. Lewis is an unfriendly leader with a low LPC score of 1 point.
The last candidate is Dr. Heather who is experienced in policy coordination although she lacks she lacks executive experience. She has excellent interpersonal skills that she believes will substitute for her lack of executive skills. Most importantly, she is jovial with both faculties and staff. She is, therefore, a pleasant leader with a high LPC score of 8.
According to Fielder, the best candidate to lead Northwest College is the first candidate, Dr. Cockerham because he will establish good leader-member relations while maintaining strong leader position power.
Da Cruz, M. R. P., Nunes, A. J. S., & Pinheiro, P. G. (2011). Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4).